S Loibl1, I Majewski2, V Guarneri3, V Nekljudova4, E Holmes5, E Bria6, C Denkert7, C Schem8, C Sotiriou9, S Loi10, M Untch11, P Conte3, R Bernards2, M Piccart9, G von Minckwitz4, J Baselga12. 1. German Breast Group, Neu-Isenburg, Germany sibylle.loibl@gbg.de. 2. The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padua, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS, Padua, Italy. 4. German Breast Group, Neu-Isenburg, Germany. 5. Frontier Science Scotland, Kincraig, UK. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. 7. Institute of Pathology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Berlin. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Kiel, Kiel, Germany. 9. Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussel, Belgium. 10. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Australia. 11. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helios-Klinikum, Berlin-Buch, Germany. 12. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The predictive value of PIK3CA mutations in HER2 positive (HER2+) breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant anti-HER2 and chemotherapy has been reported, but the power for subgroup analyses was lacking. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We combined individual patient data from five clinical trials evaluating PIK3CA mutations and associations with pathological complete response (pCR), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Patients received either trastuzumab (T), lapatinib (L) or the combination T/L in addition to a taxane-based chemotherapy. PIK3CA was genotyped in tumour biopsies taken before therapy. RESULTS: A total of 967 patients were included in this analysis; the median follow-up is 47 months. Overall, the pCR rate was significantly lower in the PIK3CA mutant compared with the wild-type group (16.2% versus 29.6%; P < 0.001). Within the hormone-receptor positive (HR+) subgroup, the PIK3CA mutant group had a pCR rate of only 7.6% compared with 24.2% in the wild-type group (P < 0.001). In contrast, in the HER2+/HR- group, there was no difference in pCR (27.2% versus 36.4%; P = 0.125) according to PIK3CA mutation status (interaction test P = 0.036). According to treatment arm, the pCR rate for mutant versus wild-type was 20.3% versus 27.1% for T (P = 0.343), 11.3% versus 16.9% for L (P = 0.369) and 16.7% versus 39.1% for T/L (P < 0.001). In the HR+ T/L group, the pCR rate was 5.5% versus 33.9% (interaction between HR and PIK3CA genotype P = 0.008). DFS and OS were not significantly different by mutation status, though the incidence rate of events was low. However, HR+/PIK3CA mutant patients seemed to have significantly worse DFS {hazard ratio (HR) 1.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-2.45], P = 0.050; Pinteraction = 0.021}. T/L tended to improve DFS compared with T in the wild-type cohort, especially in the HR- group [HR 0.72, 95% CI (0.41-1.25), P = 0.242]. CONCLUSION: Overall PIK3CA mutant/HER2+ tumours had significantly lower pCR rates compared with wild-type tumours, however mainly confined to the HR+/PIK3CA mutant population. No definite conclusions can be drawn regarding survival.
BACKGROUND: The predictive value of PIK3CA mutations in HER2 positive (HER2+) breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant anti-HER2 and chemotherapy has been reported, but the power for subgroup analyses was lacking. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We combined individual patient data from five clinical trials evaluating PIK3CA mutations and associations with pathological complete response (pCR), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Patients received either trastuzumab (T), lapatinib (L) or the combination T/L in addition to a taxane-based chemotherapy. PIK3CA was genotyped in tumour biopsies taken before therapy. RESULTS: A total of 967 patients were included in this analysis; the median follow-up is 47 months. Overall, the pCR rate was significantly lower in the PIK3CA mutant compared with the wild-type group (16.2% versus 29.6%; P < 0.001). Within the hormone-receptor positive (HR+) subgroup, the PIK3CA mutant group had a pCR rate of only 7.6% compared with 24.2% in the wild-type group (P < 0.001). In contrast, in the HER2+/HR- group, there was no difference in pCR (27.2% versus 36.4%; P = 0.125) according to PIK3CA mutation status (interaction test P = 0.036). According to treatment arm, the pCR rate for mutant versus wild-type was 20.3% versus 27.1% for T (P = 0.343), 11.3% versus 16.9% for L (P = 0.369) and 16.7% versus 39.1% for T/L (P < 0.001). In the HR+ T/L group, the pCR rate was 5.5% versus 33.9% (interaction between HR and PIK3CA genotype P = 0.008). DFS and OS were not significantly different by mutation status, though the incidence rate of events was low. However, HR+/PIK3CA mutant patients seemed to have significantly worse DFS {hazard ratio (HR) 1.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-2.45], P = 0.050; Pinteraction = 0.021}. T/L tended to improve DFS compared with T in the wild-type cohort, especially in the HR- group [HR 0.72, 95% CI (0.41-1.25), P = 0.242]. CONCLUSION: Overall PIK3CA mutant/HER2+ tumours had significantly lower pCR rates compared with wild-type tumours, however mainly confined to the HR+/PIK3CA mutant population. No definite conclusions can be drawn regarding survival.
Authors: José Baselga; Javier Cortés; Sung-Bae Kim; Seock-Ah Im; Roberto Hegg; Young-Hyuck Im; Laslo Roman; José Luiz Pedrini; Tadeusz Pienkowski; Adam Knott; Emma Clark; Mark C Benyunes; Graham Ross; Sandra M Swain Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gunter von Minckwitz; Andreas Schneeweiss; Sibylle Loibl; Christoph Salat; Carsten Denkert; Mahdi Rezai; Jens U Blohmer; Christian Jackisch; Stefan Paepke; Bernd Gerber; Dirk M Zahm; Sherko Kümmel; Holger Eidtmann; Peter Klare; Jens Huober; Serban Costa; Hans Tesch; Claus Hanusch; Jörn Hilfrich; Fariba Khandan; Peter A Fasching; Bruno V Sinn; Knut Engels; Keyur Mehta; Valentina Nekljudova; Michael Untch Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-04-30 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Katherine L Pogue-Geile; Nan Song; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Patrick G Gavin; Seong-Rim Kim; Nicole L Blackmon; Melanie Finnigan; Priya Rastogi; Louis Fehrenbacher; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Sandra M Swain; D Lawrence Wickerham; Charles E Geyer; Joseph P Costantino; Norman Wolmark; Soonmyung Paik Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-01-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Schneeweiss; S Chia; T Hickish; V Harvey; A Eniu; R Hegg; C Tausch; J H Seo; Y-F Tsai; J Ratnayake; V McNally; G Ross; J Cortés Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-05-22 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Andreas Schneeweiss; Stephen Chia; Roberto Hegg; Christoph Tausch; Rahul Deb; Jayantha Ratnayake; Virginia McNally; Graham Ross; Astrid Kiermaier; Javier Cortés Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2014-07-08 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Francesco Schettini; Tomás Pascual; Benedetta Conte; Nuria Chic; Fara Brasó-Maristany; Patricia Galván; Olga Martínez; Barbara Adamo; Maria Vidal; Montserrat Muñoz; Aranzazu Fernández-Martinez; Carla Rognoni; Gaia Griguolo; Valentina Guarneri; Pier Franco Conte; Mariavittoria Locci; Jan C Brase; Blanca Gonzalez-Farre; Patricia Villagrasa; Sabino De Placido; Rachel Schiff; Jamunarani Veeraraghavan; Mothaffar F Rimawi; C Kent Osborne; Sonia Pernas; Charles M Perou; Lisa A Carey; Aleix Prat Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: A Lambert; J Salleron; M Lion; M Rouyer; N Lozano; A Leroux; J L Merlin; Alexandre Harlé Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 3.201
Authors: A Jo Chien; Debasish Tripathy; Kathy S Albain; W Fraser Symmans; Hope S Rugo; Michelle E Melisko; Anne M Wallace; Richard Schwab; Teresa Helsten; Andres Forero-Torres; Erica Stringer-Reasor; Erin D Ellis; Henry G Kaplan; Rita Nanda; Nora Jaskowiak; Rashmi Murthy; Constantine Godellas; Judy C Boughey; Anthony D Elias; Barbara B Haley; Kathleen Kemmer; Claudine Isaacs; Amy S Clark; Julie E Lang; Janice Lu; Larissa Korde; Kirsten K Edmiston; Donald W Northfelt; Rebecca K Viscusi; Douglas Yee; Jane Perlmutter; Nola M Hylton; Laura J Van't Veer; Angela DeMichele; Amy Wilson; Garry Peterson; Meredith B Buxton; Melissa Paoloni; Julia Clennell; Scott Berry; Jeffrey B Matthews; Katherine Steeg; Ruby Singhrao; Gillian L Hirst; Ashish Sanil; Christina Yau; Smita M Asare; Donald A Berry; Laura J Esserman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jamunarani Veeraraghavan; Carmine De Angelis; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Tomás Pascual; Aleix Prat; Mothaffar F Rimawi; C Kent Osborne; Rachel Schiff Journal: Breast Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Aleix Prat; Valentina Guarneri; Laia Paré; Gaia Griguolo; Tomás Pascual; Maria V Dieci; Núria Chic; Blanca González-Farré; Antonio Frassoldati; Esther Sanfeliu; Juan M Cejalvo; Montserrat Muñoz; Giancarlo Bisagni; Fara Brasó-Maristany; Loredana Urso; Maria Vidal; Alba A Brandes; Barbara Adamo; Antonino Musolino; Federica Miglietta; Benedetta Conte; Mafalda Oliveira; Cristina Saura; Sònia Pernas; Jesús Alarcón; Antonio Llombart-Cussac; Javier Cortés; Luis Manso; Rafael López; Eva Ciruelos; Francesco Schettini; Patricia Villagrasa; Lisa A Carey; Charles M Perou; Federico Piacentini; Roberto D'Amico; Enrico Tagliafico; Joel S Parker; Pierfranco Conte Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Mariana Brandão; Rafael Caparica; Luca Malorni; Aleix Prat; Lisa A Carey; Martine Piccart Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-02-11 Impact factor: 12.531